{{WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources/Header}}
{{WP:RSPNutshell|nc|shortcut=}}
{{Infobox source reliability
| type = website
| shortcut =
| status = nc
| last = 2020
| domain1 = quackwatch.org
| rfc = [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 282#Is Quackwatch an SPS and thus not allowed as a source on BLPs?|Rfc]]
| rfcdate = 2019
}}
{{WP:RSPIntro|Quackwatch}}
__TOC__
== Summary ==
Articles written by [[Stephen Barrett]] on Quackwatch are considered generally reliable (as Barrett is a [[WP:EXPERTSOURCE|subject-matter expert]]) and [[WP:SPS|self-published]] (as there is disagreement on the comprehensiveness of Quackwatch's editorial process); Barrett's articles should not be used as a source of information on [[WP:BLPSPS|other living persons]]. Articles written by other authors on Quackwatch are not considered self-published. Many editors believe uses of Quackwatch should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and some editors say its statements should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]]. It may be preferable to use the sources cited by Quackwatch instead of Quackwatch itself. Since it often covers [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] material, [[WP:PARITY|parity of sources]] should be considered.
== Excerpt ==
{{hatnote|Excerpt from the lead of [[Quackwatch]]:}}
{{excerpt|Quackwatch|paragraphs=1|only=paragraphs|hat=no|references=no|inline=yes}}
== Discussions ==
{{WP:RSPLinks}}
=== Links ===
=== Recency ===
{{WP:RSPLAST/sandbox|2020|table=no}}
=== Rfcs ===
# 2019 [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 282#Is Quackwatch an SPS and thus not allowed as a source on BLPs?|Rfc]]
==Notes==
{{notelist}}
==References==
== Original table row for comparison ==
''(remove this when this source page is ready to go live)''
{{Wikipedia:RSPTableHeader}}
|- class="s-nc" id="Quackwatch"
| [[Quackwatch]]
| {{WP:RSPSTATUS|nc}}
| {{rsnl|282|Is Quackwatch an SPS and thus not allowed as a source on BLPs?|2019|rfc=y}}
| {{WP:RSPLAST|2020}}
| Articles written by [[Stephen Barrett]] on Quackwatch are considered generally reliable (as Barrett is a [[WP:EXPERTSOURCE|subject-matter expert]]) and [[WP:SPS|self-published]] (as there is disagreement on the comprehensiveness of Quackwatch's editorial process); Barrett's articles should not be used as a source of information on [[WP:BLPSPS|other living persons]]. Articles written by other authors on Quackwatch are not considered self-published. Many editors believe uses of Quackwatch should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and some editors say its statements should be [[WP:INTEXT|attributed]]. It may be preferable to use the sources cited by Quackwatch instead of Quackwatch itself. Since it often covers [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] material, [[WP:PARITY|parity of sources]] should be considered.
| {{WP:RSPUSES|quackwatch.org}}
|}